What are the two types of cosmological arguments?
Cosmological argument. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa theologiae, presented two versions of the cosmological argument: the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency. The first-cause argument begins with the fact that there is change in the world, and a change is always the effect of some cause or causes.
Does the cosmological argument prove God exists?
The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things all things that exist. In other words, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that go back in time forever.
Is there a cosmological argument in Asian philosophy?
Although the cosmological argument does not figure prominently in Asian philosophy, a very abbreviated version of it, proceeding from dependence, can be found in Udayana’s Nyāyakusumāñjali I,4.
Is the cosmological argument a posteriori?
As an a posteriori argument, the cosmological argument begins with a fact known by experience, namely, that something contingent exists. We might sketch out a version of the argument as follows. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed or could cease to exist) exists.
What are the 3 cosmological arguments?
He therefore states his argument in three points: firstly, everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence; secondly, the universe began to exist; so, thirdly, therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
What are the 5 cosmological arguments?
The arguments are often named as follows: (1) argument from motion, (2) argument from efficient cause, (3) argument from necessary being, (4) argument from gradations of goodness, and (5) argument from design.
Who wrote the 5 proofs for the existence of God?
Saint Thomas AquinasThe Summa Theologica is a famous work written by Saint Thomas Aquinas between AD 1265 and 1274.
Why the cosmological argument fails?
The form of the mistake is this: Every member of a collection of dependent beings is accounted for by some explanation. Therefore, the collection of dependent beings is accounted for by one explanation. This argument will fail in trying to reason that there is only one first cause or one necessary cause, i.e. one God .
How many proofs of God are there?
The Quinque viæ (Latin for "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments for the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica.
What are the 3 main arguments for the existence of God?
Much of the discussion has focused on Kant's “big three” arguments: ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, and teleological arguments.
Who created God?
We ask, "If all things have a creator, then who created God?" Actually, only created things have a creator, so it's improper to lump God with his creation. God has revealed himself to us in the Bible as having always existed.
How do we know God exists?
As mentioned earlier, evidence for God's existence is widely available through creation, conscience, rationality and human experience.
Why is the Catholic Church the one true church?
CATHOLIC - The church is CATHOLIC or Universal because she teaches all nations while subsisting in all ages, and was established by Jesus Christ to aid all men to salvation, and she teaches all the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
What violates the cosmological principle?
The cosmological principle says that the Universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic. It predicts, among other phenomena, the cosmic redshift of light and the Hubble law. Nevertheless, the existence of structure in the Universe violates the (exact) cosmological principle.
What are the weaknesses of the cosmological argument?
DisadvantagesNo proof of God's existence.Lots of Inductive Leaps (Hume)No imperial evidence (Hume)Assumptions between cause and effect.The world may be infinite and doesn't need to have a cause (Russell and Oscillating Universe Theory)Contradicting statements - Everything needs a cause, but God doesn't need a cause.More items...•
Is the existence of God logical?
God is, as a conceptual matter (that is, as a matter of definition) an unlimited being. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary.
What are the cosmological arguments for the existence of God?
Cosmological arguments for God's existence propose that God is the ultimate explanation or cause of everything. Such arguments begin with an empirical observation of the world—that there is motion, or causes, or just ordinary things that exist—and conclude this observation is explained by God's existence.
How would you explain the cosmological argument?
The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.
What are the cosmological theories?
The two main theories are the big-bang hypothesis and the steady-state hypothesis, with many variations on each basic approach. According to the steady-state theory, now of historical interest only, the universe expands, but new matter is continuously created at all points in space left by the receding galaxies.
What does the cosmological argument focus on?
Cosmological arguments take the general form of appealing to the existence of the cosmos, or the world, or things existing in the world, and arguing that these things would exist only if there was a creator or a first cause.
Why is the regress of causes vicious?
A regress can be vicious due to metaphysical impossibility, implausibility or explanatory failure.
What is the difference between fieri and esse?
In fieri is generally translated as "becoming", while in esse is generally translated as "in essence". In fieri, the process of becoming, is similar to building a house. Once it is built, the builder walks away, and it stands on its own accord; compare the watchmaker analogy. (It may require occasional maintenance, but that is beyond the scope of the first cause argument.)
What is the cosmological argument?
e. A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. A cosmological argument can also sometimes be referred ...
What is the argument from contingency?
In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency ", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist). In other words, even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause, Aquinas further said: "... and this we understand to be God."
What is the sufficient reason?
The sufficient reason ... is found in a substance which ... is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself. ". Leibniz's argument from contingency is one of the most popular cosmological arguments in philosophy of religion. It attempts to prove the existence of a necessary being and infer that this being is God.
Is causality a priori or inductive?
David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience. Andrew Loke replies that, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, only things which begin to exist require a cause. On the other hand, something that is without beginning has always existed and therefore does not require a cause. The Kalam and the Thomistic cosmological argument posit that there cannot be an actual infinite regress of causes, therefore there must be an uncaused First Cause that is beginningless and does not require a cause.
What is the best way to explain the universe?
William Lane Craig, who was responsible for re-popularizing this argument in Western philosophy, presents it in the following general form: 1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2 The universe began to exist. 3 Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
How do cosmological arguments work?
Cosmological arguments attempt to prove God’s existence by observing the world around us (the cosmos). They begin with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a “God-type” thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Science finally caught up with theologians in the twentieth century, when the fact that the universe had a beginning was confirmed. So, today, the cosmological arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers.
What are the two forms of cosmological arguments?
There are two basic forms of cosmological arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be the “vertical” and the “horizontal.”. These names indicate the direction from which the causes come. The argument in the vertical form is that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from ...
What would happen if there were no first causes?
If there were no first cause, then the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God. The vertical form of cosmological argument is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful.
What causes a triangle?
The triangle is thus caused by something else —which also must have a cause. This cannot go on forever (there are no infinite series). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now, apply this example to everything in the universe.
What is the definition of a triangle?
We can define a triangle as “the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments. ”. Notice what is not part of this definition: existence. This definition of a triangle would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle’s nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists ...
What is the only thing that would not have to be given existence?
The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This something would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, and be infinite. That something is God, the “ I AM ” of Exodus 3:14.
Is there an infinite series of trees?
But every seed had its beginning (its “cause”) in another tree. There cannot be an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed, because no series is infinite. All series are finite (limited) by definition.
What is the definition of Cosmological Argument?
Cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God.
Who gave the first cause argument and the argument from contingency?
The argument from contingency follows by another route a similar basic movement of thought from the nature of the world to its ultimate ground. Aquinas gave the first-cause argument and the argument from contingency—both forms of cosmological reasoning—a central place for many centuries...
What is the uncaused cause of infinite regression?
An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause , which means there is no cause of existence. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. The uncaused cause must be God. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion.
How does the Cosmological Argument prove that God exists?
The Cosmological Argument attempts to prove that God exists by showing that there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to things all things that exist. In other words, there cannot be an infinite number of causes that go back in time forever.
What are the strengths of the Cosmological Argument?
Strengths of the argument. The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event . Some arguments for God’s existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and straightforward.
What does it mean when there is no first cause?
Basically, this would mean there was no first cause, and without a first cause, there is no second, or third, or fourth, etc. In order to get to now. Therefore, it states that there must be a final uncaused cause of all things. This uncaused cause is God.
What are the weaknesses of the argument?
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.
Who said that things in motion cannot have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move?
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.
Can something exist?
Things exist. It is possible for those things to not exist. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
What is the Kalam argument?
The Kalam argument is the simplest version of the Cosmological argument in the A level philosophy syllabus. It says: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Premise 1 basically says something can't come out of nothing. Things don't just pop into existence.
What does Aquinas' cosmological argument show?
Aquinas' cosmological arguments and the Kalam argument only show that there is a first cause. But they don't show that this first cause is God. So, even if we accept that there was a first cause, it doesn't necessarily follow that God exists - much less the specific being described in the concept of God.
What is the argument that everything depends on something else?
Cosmological arguments start from the observation that everything depends on something else for its existence. For example, you depended on your parents in order to exist, and they depended on their parents, and so on.
What is Aquinas' first way?
Aquinas' first way is the argument from motion.
What does "premise 1" mean?
Premise 1 basically says something can't come out of nothing. Things don't just pop into existence.
Why can't we see something happen without a cause?
But just because we've never seen something happen without a cause, doesn't mean it's never happened. It just means we've never seen it. Even physics says something along these lines. Before the big bang, there was no time and space (because time and space came into existence at the same time as the universe itself).
Which is more long-winded, Descartes or Aquinas?
Descartes' version of the cosmological argument is a lot more long-winded than the Kalam argument or any of Aquinas'.
Offered by Samuel Clarke
1) There are dependent beings. 2) For any dependent being, it either depends on itself, or it depends on another. 3) Nothing can depend on itself. 4) So, all dependent beings depend on another.
Davis-Craig Leibnizian Explanation
1) Everything that exists has an explanation. 2) The universe exists. 3) So, the universe has an explanation. 4) If the universe has an explanation its explanation is God. 5) So, God exists.
Overview
A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. A cosmological argument can also sometimes be referred to as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument, or prime mover argument. Whichever term is em…
History
Plato (c. 427–347 BC) and Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats. In The Laws (Book X), Plato posited that all movement in the world and the Cosmos was "imparted motion". This required a "self-originated motion" to set it in motion and to maintain it. In Timaeus, Plato posited a "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as th…
Versions of the argument
In the scholastic era, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency", following Aristotle in claiming that there must be something to explain why the Universe exists. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (contingency), its existence must have a cause – not merely another contingent thing, but something that exists by necessity (something that must exist in order for anything else to exist). In other words, even if the Universe has alway…
Cosmological argument and infinite regress
Depending on its formulation, the cosmological argument is an example of a positive infinite regress argument. An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor. An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress. A positive infinite regress argument employs the regress …
Objections and counterarguments
One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the first cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the first cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue. Critics often press that arguing for the first cause's exemption raises the question of why the first cause is indeed exempt, whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the vari…
See also
• Argument
• Biblical cosmology
• Chaos
• Cosmogony
• Creation myth
External links
• Reichenbach, Bruce. "Cosmological Argument". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Cosmological Argument
- Things exist.
- It is possible for those things to not exist.
- Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
- There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
Strengths of The Argument
- The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God’s existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and straightforward. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into ex…
Weaknesses of The Argument
- One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also, by definition, need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be. But, it would be true that if the statement is offered “All things that exist must have a cause, then God would need a c…